Roy's main issue with this development, as I read it, is that he sees it as a "slap in the face" to himself, his co-creators of Infinity Inc (since their characters and the work they did with the Alan Scott character has been thrown out) and longtime fans. As a longtime fan, I can't argue with that, and I feel Roy has every right to be annoyed. I still this as an issue solely relating to the characters and their history-I'm not really interested in the wider politics of it, except inasmuch as that I resent characters I liked being sacrificed for a social progress agenda that doesn't much concern me. .

tony ingram wrote:Roy's main issue with this development, as I read it, is that he sees it as a "slap in the face" to himself, his co-creators of Infinity Inc (since their characters and the work they did with the Alan Scott character has been thrown out) and longtime fans. As a longtime fan, I can't argue with that, and I feel Roy has every right to be annoyed. I still this as an issue solely relating to the characters and their history-I'm not really interested in the wider politics of it, except inasmuch as that I resent characters I liked being sacrificed for a social progress agenda that doesn't much concern me. .

I get why Mr. Thomas is upset, I do, in that he IS the creator of Jade and Obsidian. But, that won't change my mind. And it still doesn't mean we would ever have seen them again anyway. These are different versions of the characters, that path might never have appeared even if he were straight. As to the agenda part, why do people always claim it's an agenda when changes are made, but never when things stay the same? I mean, "it's always been this way so no changes" is as much a social agenda as change. If you only see SWMs as the default, that IS a political/social stance, no matter how much people like that blogger try to argue it's not. I look at it like Star Trek. I LOVE Trek, grew up watching it, have seen all of them, except Voyager. Just never really got into it, but I have seen a number of them. I particularly love Next Generation. With the new/2009 series, that's all gone. I may never get to see another Next Gen again, at least new. But, why did the change happen? Not enough people were supporting it to keep it going the old way. No matter how vocal and upset some long-term fans were/are, it just wasn't making enough money. I either accept that this new series IS Trek or I don't, but if it doesn't keep selling, there'll be no more. Some fans are willing to let it die off rather than to accept the changes. I would rather get some of what I like than none. I think it's the same here. While I have issues with how DC operates, if they go down it might take a LARGE portion of the industry with them. That's something I don't want. I also think diversity is a genuinely good thing, even though others simply want what they want. I like it for its own sake, I find it interesting. But, I also think it's vital to the industry in economic terms. Fans who want things as they were, especially in only reading characters they already like and only as they always were are buying less and less, as are fans overall. If the superhero comics don't start bringing in new readers, they'll die off. And they'll take everything else with them, at least in America. And by having new characters or new versions of old characters, they MIGHT bring in new readers, those who might identify with different people. It's pretty likely, in that I've heard about people who start reading a character because of a change, and that it seems less-than-a-coincidence that most comics fans AND characters are SWMs. If it's ok for us, why not for others?To say that they "should" (not that you have, but I have heard it) identify with the SWMs as they've always been is to propagate a privilege and to ignore that it's easy to identify with those like yourself, and that that should translate to those not SWMs. By which I mean that those who make claims like that are SWMs for the most part, and don't seem to get that that is part of why they identify with those characters, and they're denying others the ability to do the same with characters like them. I do NOT like the idea that people will only read characters like them (you hear that argument, that people don't want characters to have political or religious ideals because if they don't share the values of the character they won't want to read them, and it strikes me as bizarre), but if all the characters are like you, it's hard to claim that others should just live with characters not being like them. IMO diversity in characters is vital to the economic future of comics, and if that doesn't happen the American industry will continue to die off. Some of us are going to lose the versions of the characters we like. But, we'll live. I certainly have. I'll never see the 5-year-gap Legion again. I'll never see the Bronze Age Superman again. But, I might get other things I like. I have before.

randy77tx wrote:Have you noticed how some posters changed their tune when they found out Alan's gay? As if that were some sort of compensation?

In terms of what? If you mean me, I still won't buy DC, but I have always thought that DC's attempts at increasing diversity were good things. Ask anyone who knew me on those boards.

It was directed mostly toward the Comic Bloc community but ... if the shoe fits. And it obviously does. None of us have implied a sense of homophobia that you seem to imply. What we have objected to is abusing established characters for profit. Say what you will, defend DC as much as you want, but you know it's true.

I have made my views on the whole Alan Scott fiasco. As Tony has pointed out with Northstar, there is a difference. He was created as a gay character. I even said I would concede to a JSAer being gay if it meant not interfering with his established continuity, i.e. Dr. Mid-Nite or Mr. Terrific. Retconning a character to please a sales minority is a sales scheme.

"This is a new version." Yes, it is. But it has its damage. And for some of us, although this comes off sounding cliche by now, it feels as if our comic past time has been raped. It means the Alan Scott we loved an appreciated is gone. No more Alan, no more Harlequin, Jade and Obsidian. You keep talking about "your Legion" but you don't seem to understand "our JSA."

Before I get to my last point I want to say this: Reply to this however you want. I didn't respond to everything you've said because since the entire announcement about Alan Scott you have ranted endless nonsense. I just don't want to get into it with you because you've made a stance and it's obvious you're not budging. And your repeated postings stating the same thing over and over border on trolling. I will not reply to anything you post. There's no use. What was a fun thread about the anticipation of Earth-2 and then followed disappointment and eventual discussions has turned sour. I won't participate in that.

Finally, how do I really feel about Alan Scott? I'm gay. It's never been brought up here, or any other message board because it has no bearing, but your crusade to defend the homosexual community compels me to bring it up. Yes, I'm a gay man in a gay relationship. I do see this as a sales ploy. I'm not impressed. I'd rather have a brand new character who is 100% gay than taking one of my favorite characters and bastardizing him to try to please a sales minority. It's not diversity. That much is obvious. DC is trying to profit off of this stunt while at the same time trying to champion themselves as respecting the gay community. It's the same as these gays who parade around naked on a float and call it gay pride. Respect is earned not volunteered or bought.

Tony, I hope I have not brought any disrespect with this post. I'm just tired of this poster's flip-flopping position and failure to make a valid point. If you guys want to continue discussing the greatest heroes ever, I'm here. If you want to discuss this Elseworlds version then I have nothing else to say or post. (Yes, I know that sounds like the "goodbye cruel message board" cliched ending.)

OK, I think we all need to calm down a bit. I understand exactly where you're coming from Randy, as I've been accused of homophobia, of racism or of not wanting diversity myself becase I objected to what was done to Alan and Obsidian and to the killing of Ted Kord and creation of Jaime Reyes, but I didn't read Mbast's post as implying that at all. I think you're lumping him in with certain other individuals on that 'other' board who have been rather more aggresive and offensive in pursuit of a very definite agenda. I appreciate how much that attitude can frustrate and infuriate, but I really don't think that's what was intended here. I don't think we need that level of animosity here, and I'm hopeful we won't get it.

I think it simply comes down to whether you think using superhero comics as a medium for social change is more or less important than than fans' attachment to characters. Personally, I don't: if a comic can help draw attention to a real world problem while telling a good story, great, but if a favourite character has to be sacrificed for it, that's not a trade I'm willing to make as the character is higher on my personal list of priorities than the point being made, since I buy superhero comics principally for escapist entrtainment, not to be 'educated' by them.

Purely to try to inject some fun back into things (and with apologies for my negligible art skills), here's the first page of a Golden Age style, totally original and non-derivative strip I've been toying with...

randy77tx wrote:you have ranted endless nonsense. I just don't want to get into it with you because you've made a stance and it's obvious you're not budging. And your repeated postings stating the same thing over and over border on trolling.

And

randy77tx wrote:I'm just tired of this poster's flip-flopping position and failure to make a valid point. If you guys want to continue discussing the greatest heroes ever, I'm here. If you want to discuss this Elseworlds version then I have nothing else to say or post. (Yes, I know that sounds like the "goodbye cruel message board" cliched ending.)

Sorry, Tony, but obviously this board isn't for me. I'll be gone. Randy is obviously going to be friendly towards anyone who agrees with him, and nothing but nasty the minute you don't. He's never been upset before when I've repeated things, only this time when I don't agree with him. I think that's enough for me. I've got better things to do than read stuff like this, because it looks like the worst of the DC board, accusing people of "trolling" because they don't say what you want to hear. I'm just not interested in being part of a community with the "be like us or be attacked" attitude this gives out. Thanks for the time here, it was fun. Good luck.

I really hope you'll reconsider this. To be honest, I think this is the first time in the two and a half years this board has been here that we've ever had such a heated argument between posters. I was rather hoping we could be more civilized than the other boards and rise above such things.

For what it's worth, I'd like it very much if neither Randy nor Mbast1 left. So you had a disagreement, can't we just accept that you're not going to see eye-to-eye on this one topic and move on? Just shake hands and turn it into a bro-hug? Please? For me? It's not my birthday but let's pretend it is and this can be my present. Wait, it's Father's Day soon, though! I'm a father! Yeah! Give me this present for that! Pretend I'm your dad!

Lucy McGough wrote:Of course, if he's already left, he won't be reading this

Right, I wouldn't have seen it if people hadn't emailed me at home. Which was nice.

First, I want to apologize. Both to Randy directly for getting upset, and to the board for letting things get out of hand. Second, I want to make it clear that I thought it best to leave the board because I don't want to upset the sense of community here. This is a close-knit group, and I think I don't fit in, in some ways. But, since everyone was so nice, I'll just try to stick to topics where I can interact in a fun, friendly way and avoid more hot-button issues. I really don't want to be the guy who makes this a place you don't want to be. DC boards could be fun, but they could also be quite ugly, and I don't want to be the person who turns this place that way. So, I'll be avoiding certain topics here, and you can all feel welcome to let me know if I'm making things less than fun. Otherwise, I would like to get back to the fun interactions!

Well, should I ever get a ride in a police box or a DeLorean the first thing on my list will be fathering you. Wait, no. . .that was an awful and awkward thing to say, wasn't it? Maybe the first thing on my list will be to stop myself from making this post. . . .

Does any of it? In unrelated news, it now appears that DC have gotten over the whole four-Robins-in-five-years thing by saying that, contrary to what's been said in various titles over the last few months, Tim drake was now never an official Robin at all-he was Red Robin all along.

Well, some of it does, and I guess that fools me into thinking they're trying to make sense.

tony ingram wrote:In unrelated news, it now appears that DC have gotten over the whole four-Robins-in-five-years thing by saying that, contrary to what's been said in various titles over the last few months, Tim drake was now never an official Robin at all-he was Red Robin all along.

It really seems like this is all done as haphazardly as was feared. There's no sense of cohesion. Weird.

tony ingram wrote:It all seems to be led by the editors rather than the writers, but I get the feeling decisions are being imposed upon them from higher up.

A lot of corporate comics SEEM to be corporate comics, really. There's no sense of giving good writers and artists a box to play in and then letting them produce good works. But, and I don't mean to step on any toes, when you have fans who only accept very tight continuity and are very verbal about it I don't think you can expect anything else. That kind of continuity requires a top-down control, IMO, and that's what we're seeing being used against fans.

tony ingram wrote:But why seem to actively oppose what they know their established fans want? These are the people who would have been guaranteed to keep on buying, after all!

You know, I don't know that that's true. Many fans HAVE quit, so I guess there's no way to know how many would do so in the future. The fanbase was shrinking, so they had to do something. I don't necessarily have a problem with them making these changes, my issue is about how they treat creators. And that doesn't seem to be changing. I think there are a few books they publish I'd actually like, but I won't buy it as long as their business practices remain as they are. I'm working on dropping Marvel for the same reason. I like some of what they put out, but between their practices and their corporate-driven vision, I'm not at all willing to spend the money. So, I'm not likely to understand their current fans, those fans who quit due to the changes, and so on. So, I'm guessing even more here than I might at other times.

I would say that DC's attitude to creators has changed in recent years. I'd say it's taken a massive step backwards. Look at the virtual dissolution of Vertigo, which was a haven for creators rights. The work that Karen Berger did over there over so many years has been pretty comprehensively undone in a comparatively short space of time, and the creators are the poorer for it.

tony ingram wrote:I would say that DC's attitude to creators has changed in recent years. I'd say it's taken a massive step backwards.

Ok, that's true, I should have thought about that. I was just making the point that I'm not the person to really get what their current fans want. I've always loved the DCU, (I recently got a copy of the JSA that introduced the new Red Tornado) and I don't know that I'll ever get to the point where I don't, but it isn't the same place I used to know, that's true.